posted by Damozel |
It's kind of unfair to blame Robin Givhan too much for the interest in Hillary's neckline issue. After all, as Howard Kurz and Ruth Marcus have pointed out, Givhan has won a Pulitzer prize for criticism. When she writes about fashion, she is writing about it seriously. She writes, says Howard Kurz, about "the intersection of fashion and politics." She wouldn't write about Hillary's neckline unless it had Ramifications.
Which is why she isn't as amusing as the Fug Girls or the Manolo (who are into fashion miscalculations for the fun/schadenfreude of it): she has to convey that she is Seriously Deconstructing the Inner Motivations of Political Figures Based on their Fashion Missteps. Even so, she writes well and I enjoy her.
"Robin has consistently raised similar questions over the years about both men and women who are in the public eye," said Steve Reiss, The Post's deputy assistant managing editor for Style. "We know these people take a great deal of care in how they present themselves on TV and in public, and that is fair game for analysis." Noting that the newspaper has run dozens of articles on Clinton's policy positions and background, Reiss said, "I don't feel we have anything to apologize for."''....
"I would never say the column was about a body part," Givhan said. "It was about a style of dress. People have gone down the road of saying, 'I can't believe you're writing about her breasts.' I wasn't writing about her breasts. I was writing about her neckline" (Howard Kurz).
Where Givhan went wrong, according to me, was by expressing mock shock/horror at the sight. (Givhan)
Givhan implied that a glimpse of Hillary's cleavage was something shocking for the simple reason Hillary has always kept her cleavage to herself (in public). You end up feeling like a voyeur: "Just look away!" Givhan advised, for all the world like---or so I thought at first blush--- one of those easily embarrassed adolescent horrified at a ""small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity" by her mom or her scary high school principal. As a woman of a certain age myself, I found this childish and offensive. But maybe I misunderstood.
I can see now that she might have been saying that since Hillary has always presented herself as a desexualized goddess, her neckline issues were---or might have been--- due to a "wardrobe malfunction" and therefore we shouldn't obtrude into the breach our collective "aggressive western eye" [tm Camille Paglia who in her book Sexual Personae spins many a tale of the dire punishments meted out in the art and literature of the west to those who presume to gaze upon the goddess in a state of dishabille]. Perhaps Givhan was merely channeling Paglia.
As I previously noted, the formidable Ann Althouse----who believes, as I do, that breasts are in fact a legitimate topic of feminist discourse--- thought Hillary's neckline meant something (what, I am not really sure). (Althouse) Sometimes, though by no reason always, Althouse's method of political discourse often consists of implanting a suggestion and then abruptly walking away from its implications while the heads of her readers implode as they attempt to extract the barb. Sometimes you have to delve into the comments and her responses to see what she really thinks. With respect to this post, she said:
We are talking about a choice to intrude sexuality into the mind of those who are receiving what is a political message. The only way out of that assertion if the woman is simply hapless and incompetent. If this is a political actor whom we are to take seriously -- and I am assuming that is the case -- then she is intentionally using what some other women opt not to use. That matters and that is a subject for political commentary. Don't break off my quote and act like I've said something different from what I've said. Comprehend the whole thing and then talk about it. Either respond to my complete thought or get your own blog and snipe from a distance. I will not be twisted on my own blog. (Althouse; comment)
She also said:
I didn't say women should be ashamed. Dressing in a professional manner and avoiding revealing clothing is not something a woman does out of shame. It represents an intelligent decision to concentrate attention on your professional role and to minimize distracting sexual thoughts in the person you want to communicate with. A woman isn't "ashamed" of her breasts simply because she's decided to make them not the center of attention. (Althouse; comment)
I'm guessing from this that Althouse didn't really approve of Hillary's controversial neckline. But I do, I approve. Althouse seems to assume either that all women spend as much time thinking about the effect of their cleavage as (I guess) she does (?). Most ladies I know over 45 look at themselves in a mirror and think things like:
- "Too much V? Surely not; it's summer."
- "I can't believe I dribbled coffee on my only other black silk blouse."
- "Wow, this V-neck definitely draws the eye downward from my incipient crow's feet."
- "It's either this or the black turtleneck and it's like a sauna out there."
- "Does this V-neck make my thighs look thinner?"
- "With this pink jacket, the high-necked white blouse makes me look short-legged, choppy, and like Dolores Umbridge in the Harry Potter movie; I'm gonna have to go with the V-neck."
As Ruth Marcus wisely comments, "Sometimes a V-neck is just a V-neck." (Marcus)
On the whole, I'm pretty pleased that Hillary---intentionally or unintentionally--- unabashedly presented herself not only as the only woman running for president, but also as a woman with all that goes with it, particularly after Elizabeth Edwards' (bless!) unfortunately misconstrued comment---and it was misconstrued--- in her Salon interview. I think it would be advantageous for Clinton to continue in that vein, at least till the primaries are over. For one thing, it would shut up all the mutterings from the so-called "right" that Hillary is trying to pass herself off as Bill v.2.
To be fair to Givhan, it's the public that made the discussion more about breasts than necklines. It's the public that is apparently flabbergasted at the reminder that the future leader of the free world is a W-O-M-A-N. Unlike others, I'm content for the discussion of things such as breasts and the rest of the things that go along with being one of those to happen sooner rather than later. Let's get it all out of the way NOW, so when the time rolls round for decision-making everyone's got it out of their system.
Of all the candidates now on offer---or, including Gingrich and Al Gore, at all likely to be on offer---Hillary Clinton is doubtless the best qualified by experience, disposition, presentation, education, connections, intelligence, and ability to become the next president. It took me awhile to get to this point, but here I am. Let's all get past the discovery that she's a woman in her middle years so everyone gets used to the idea and can concentrate properly on the issues....
PREVIOUS BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
- Cleavagegate: Hillary Clinton Rocks the Internets (and her V-Neck).
- [Elizabeth] Edwards for President! (The Salon Interview).
LINKED, QUOTED, OR CITED
- Howard Kurz, Cleavage & the Clinton Campaign Chest (Washington Post)
- Joan Walsh, Elizabeth Edwards didn't call Hillary Clinton a man (Salon)
- Ruth Marcus, Pretty Formidable in Pink (Washington Post)
- Robin Givhan, Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory (The Washington Post)
BACKSTORY
- (Althouse) Ms. Magazine protests against "sexist" coverage of women politicians... AKA Hillary.
- (Althouse) Clinton...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072401853.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702369.html?nav=hcmodule
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2007/07/17/edwards_drudge/index.html?source=rss
Comments